-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 5A.
- The case concerned an Illinois law that permitted the city of Chicago to condemn a corporation's land for a street expansion project and compensate the company with one dollar. The Court overturned the Illinois Supreme Court's decision and ruled the one-dollar sum did not amount to just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
-
Gitlow v. New York
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 1A.
-
Near v. Minnesota
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 1A. -In this case a Minnesota public official sued Near, who published “The Saturday Press,” under a Minnesota State statute that allowed for temporary and permanent injunctions against those who created a “public nuisance." The state court held in favor of the public official and ordered the cessation of “The Saturday Press.” The State’s supreme court affirmed, and Near appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
-
Powell v. Alabama
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 6A.
- In this case nine young black men allegedly raped two white women on a freight train near Scottsboro, Alabama. The court held that under the Sixth Amendment, counsel must be provided to all defendants charged with a capital felony in a state court regardless of that defendant's ability to pay.
-
De Jonge v. Oregon
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 1A.
- In this case De Jonge and three other speakers at a meeting of 150–300 people who were protesting police brutality. Neither he nor the other speakers advocated violence. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies the First Amendment right of freedom of assembly to the individual U.S. states.
-
Cantwell v. Connecticut
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 1A.
- In this case a Jehovah’s Witnesses was convicted on a charge of breach of the peace for playing a phonograph record sharply critical of the Catholic religion to persons he encountered on the street. The Court held the Cantwells' actions were protected by the First Amendment. Justice Owen Roberts reasoned that while general regulations on solicitation were legitimate, restrictions based on religious grounds were not.
-
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 1A. -In this case, the BOEET authorized reimbursement to parents of money spent for bus transportation of their children, including transportation of children to Catholic parochial schools. Everson, a resident of Ewing Township, filed a suit against the board of education in which he contended that the reimbursement of money to parents of parochial school students violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
-
In re Oliver
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 6A. -In this case Oliver was summoned by subpoena to a grand jury in Michigan. Judge Hartrick had been appointed as a one-man secret grand jury to investigate organized crime participation in local gambling and public corruption. The S.C. reversed and remanded the decision of the Michigan S.C. and held that the right to a public trial applies to state criminal proceedings.
-
Mapp v. Ohio
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 4A.
- In this case, police officers entered Dollree Mapp’s home without a search warrant and found obscene materials there. Mapp was convicted of possessing these materials, but challenged her conviction. The high court said evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts.
-
Robinson v. California
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 8A.
- In this case, the defendant, Robinson, was convicted by a jury under a California statute making it a criminal offense to be addicted to the use of narcotics. The Court held that laws imprisoning persons afflicted with the "illness" of narcotic addiction inflicted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
-
Gideon v. Wainwright
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 6A. -Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law. Gideon appeared in court without an attorney. In open court, he asked the judge to appoint counsel for him because he could not afford an attorney. The trial judge denied Gideon’s request because Florida law only permitted appointment of counsel for poor defendants charged with capital offenses.
-
Edwards v. South Carolina
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 1A.
- A group of African-American high school and college students marched on the S.C. grounds to protest segregation. The majority opinion for the S.C., Justice Stewart wrote that the students’ actions “reflect an exercise of these basic constitutional rights in their most pristine and classic form.” He said that the 1st and 14th A. do not “permit a State to make criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views."
-
Ker v. California
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 4A.
- Deputy sheriffs investigating illegal drug trafficking bought drugs from Murphy and Terrhagen, the transaction taking place at a secluded location. The Court held that the surreptitious entry into the apartment was justified because the deputies were investigating narcotics, which was an exigent circumstance, and held that the arrests of the Kers were lawful.
-
Malloy v. Hogan
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 5A.
- Malloy was arrested during a gambling raid in Connecticut and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of pool selling. After he pleaded guilty, he was ordered to testify about gambling in Hartford. He refused on the grounds that his testimony could incriminate himself and was held in contempt until he agreed to cooperate.The S.C. reversed the decision of the C.S.C.E.
-
Pointer v. Texas
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 6A. -Petitioner was arrested and brought before a state judge for preliminary hearing on a robbery charge. The complaining witness testified but petitioner, who had no counsel, did not cross-examine.The witness had moved to another State, and the transcript of his testimony at the hearing was introduced over petitioner's objections that he was denied the right of confrontation. He was convicted and the highest state court affirmed.
-
Parker v. Gladden
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 6A.
- Lee Parker was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced him to the O.S.P for a potential maximum of the remainder of his life.The Court held that the bailiff's statements violated Parker’s right under the 6th and 14th A. The Court noted that there was no dispute over what the bailiff said, nor any dispute over whether he was subjected to confrontation, cross-examination or other constitutional safeguards.
-
Klopfer v. North Carolina
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 6A. -Peter Klopfer was convicted of criminal trespass when he participated in a civil rights demonstration at a restaurant. The jury could not reach a verdict, Klopfer objected, arguing that the motion violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, but the judge granted the state’s request. The Supreme Court held that indefinitely suspending a trial violates a defendant’s right to a speedy trial.
-
Washington v. Texas
-This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 6A.
- Washington was convicted of murder and sentenced to prison. At trial, Washington alleged that Charles F., already convicted for the same murder, actually shot the victim while Washington attempted to stop the shooting.Washington argued that refusing to allow Fuller to testify violated his 6th A.The S.C. held that the 6 A. right to compulsory process is so fundamental that it is incorporated in the due process clause of the 14th A. -
Duncan v. Louisiana
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 6A. -Gary D., a black teenager in Louisiana, was found guilty of assaulting a white youth by allegedly slapping him on the elbow. Duncan was sentenced to 60 days in prison and fined $150. Duncan's request for a jury trial was denied. The Court reversed Duncan's conviction, concluding that the 6 A. was fundamental. As a result, the 14th A. guaranteed the right to a jury trial even in criminal prosecutions brought in state courts.
-
Benton v. Maryland
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 5A. -Benton was charged with burglary and larceny in a Maryland court. A jury found him not guilty of larceny but guilty of burglary. It indicted him for larceny and burglary; the jury found him guilty of both charges. Benton then appealed arguing that that re-indicting him on the larceny charge after he had been acquitted amounted to double jeopardy. Benton's larceny conviction was overturned.
-
Schilb v. Kuebel
-This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 8A.
-John was charged with leaving the scene of a car accident and obstructing traffic. He paid 10% of his bail, in accordance with state law. After his trial, the amount he had deposited was returned to him with $7.50 less than the amount paid. The defendant filed a class action that the charge violated the EPC. S.C. held that the Illinois bail system did not violate the EPC of the U.S. Constitution. -
Rabe v. Washington
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 6A.
- Petitioner was convicted of violating Washington's obscenity statute for showing a sexually frank motion picture at a drive-in theater. In affirming his conviction, the WSC did not hold that the film was obscene.Held: A State may not criminally punish the exhibition of a motion picture film at a drive-in theater where person has not given fair notice that the location of the exhibition was a vital element of the offense.
-
Argersinger v. Hamlin
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 6A. -Jon was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. The charge carried a penalty of six months in jail & a $1,000 fine. During the trial he was convicted and sentenced to serve 90 days in jail, Jon was not represented by an attorney. In order to guarantee fairness in trials involving jail time, no matter how petty the charge, the Court found that the state was obligated to provide the accused with counsel.
-
McDonald v. Chicago
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 2A.
- Several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion. The the Court reasoned that the law in question was enacted under the authority of the federal government and, thus, the Second Amendment was applicable.
-
Timbs v. Indiana
- This case incorporated the eminent domain provision of the 8A.
- Timbs purchased a Land Rover using the proceeds from his father’s life insurance policy. Timbs used the vehicle for multiple trips within Indiana to transport heroin.Timbs was arrested at a traffic stop. At the time of his arrest, the Land Rover had approximately 15,000 more miles on it than when he purchased it in January. The Court ruled that the 8A is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the 14A.